Neugebauer R
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1979 Apr;36(4):477-83. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1979.01780040119013.
Historians of medieval and early modern psychiatry have utilized limited source materials in their research. They have focused on printed works, particularly formal treatises by celebrated authors, and neglected manuscript collections. The resulting histories depict early European psychiatric thought as dominated by demonology. Examination of the archives of an early English legal incompetency jurisdiction flatly contradicts this picture. Starting in the 13th century, the English government conducted mental status examinations of psychiatrically disabled individuals, using commonsense, naturalistic criteria of impairment; private, supervised guardians were appointed for such persons. Furthermore, etiological theories entertained by royal officials and laymen relied on physiological and psychological notions of psychiatric illness. These findings raise serious questions about conventional accounts of this period and underline the need for more research using original manuscripts.
中世纪和近代早期精神病学的历史学家在研究中使用的资料来源有限。他们专注于印刷作品，尤其是著名作者的正式论文，而忽略了手稿收藏。由此产生的历史将早期欧洲精神病学思想描绘为被魔鬼学所主导。对早期英国法律无行为能力管辖权档案的审查与这幅图景截然相反。从13世纪开始，英国政府对精神残疾者进行精神状态检查，采用常识性的、自然主义的损伤标准；为这些人指定私人的、受监督的监护人。此外，王室官员和外行所接受的病因理论依赖于精神疾病的生理和心理概念。这些发现对这一时期的传统说法提出了严重质疑，并强调了使用原始手稿进行更多研究的必要性。
